{"id":14298,"date":"2021-03-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2021-03-10T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/current_affairs\/uncategorized\/10-03-2021\/sc-to-re-examine-reservation-ceiling\/"},"modified":"2021-03-10T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2021-03-10T00:00:00","slug":"sc-to-re-examine-reservation-ceiling","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/current-affairs\/10-03-2021\/sc-to-re-examine-reservation-ceiling","title":{"rendered":"SC to Re-examine Reservation Ceiling"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>In News<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Recently, the <strong>Supreme Court<\/strong> (SC) has decided to examine whether its <strong>Indira Sawhney case of 1992<\/strong>, which <strong>fixed the ceiling limit of 50% for reservation<\/strong> in government jobs and educational admissions, <strong>requires a re-look<\/strong> by a larger Bench.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>This comes in the backdrop of the<strong> crossing of the 50% reservation limit <\/strong>by states like <strong>Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra<\/strong>, which allow reservation <strong>over 60%<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Background<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Reservation in Tamil Nadu<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>The <strong>Tamil Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes <\/strong>(Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of appointments or posts in the Services under the State) <strong>Act of 1993<\/strong> provides <strong>69% reservation <\/strong>in admissions and in public services.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Challenge:<\/strong> The validity of the Act has been challenged by a Tamil Nadu student for various<strong> concerns<\/strong>.\n<ul>\n<li>The 69% reservation is <strong>arbitrary, unreasonable and excessive <\/strong>and affects general category students and candidates to the public services.<\/li>\n<li>It has been highlighted that the 1993 Act is<strong> contrary to <\/strong>the principle laid down by the judgement in the case of<strong> Indra Sawhney &#038; Others vs Union of India, 1992 <\/strong>and also <strong>violates the 102nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 2018<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>Tamil Nadu\u2019s Stand<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>The state government has <strong>justified the increased<\/strong> reservation percentage as it is based on \u201c<strong>quantifiable data<\/strong>\u201d.<\/li>\n<li>It also highlighted that the <strong>state\u2019s case is different<\/strong> from other states and the <strong>Ninth Schedule protects the 1993 Act from judicial review<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>Reservation in Maharashtra<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>The <strong>Maharashtra State Reservation<\/strong> (of Seats for Admission in Educational Institutions in the State and for Appointments to the Posts in the Public Services under the State)<strong> for Socially and Educationally Backward<\/strong> (SEBC)<strong> Act of 2018<\/strong> provides <strong>12% to 13% quota benefits for the Maratha<\/strong> community.\n<ul>\n<li>In <strong>June 2019<\/strong>, although, the Bombay High Court reduced it from the<strong> 16% recommended by the Gaikwad Commission<\/strong> to <strong>12% in education<\/strong> and <strong>13% in employment<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>It, thus, takes the reservation percentage in the State <strong>across the 50% mark<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>Challenge:<\/strong> A group of social workers and<strong> representatives of the Muslim community challenged<\/strong> the SEBC Act for multiple <strong>concerns<\/strong>.\n<ul>\n<li>Despite there being other identified socially and educationally backward communities, <strong>only Marathas were chosen<\/strong> which shows <strong>partiality<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>The action amounts to \u201c<strong>one person or one community<\/strong>\u201d legislation and is therefore <strong>struck by the equality clause<\/strong> guaranteed under<strong> Article 14<\/strong> of the Constitution of India.<\/li>\n<li>It is <strong>violative of Article 342A <\/strong>of the Constitution as <strong>only the President is empowered<\/strong> <strong>to notify<\/strong>, in consultation with the Governor, for each State and UT, the list of <strong>socially and educationally backward classes<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>SC\u2019s Stand and Due Course of Action<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>It has <strong>kept the question of the legality of Tamil Nadu\u2019s Act aside<\/strong> and is <strong>waiting <\/strong>for a Constitution Bench to decide the <strong>validity of the Maratha quota law first<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>It has<strong> issued notice to the States<\/strong>, providing them with an <strong>opportunity to clarify their position on the 50%<\/strong> reservation mark.<\/li>\n<li>It will <strong>examine<\/strong> if the <strong>Gaikwad Commission had made up a case of \u201cextraordinary circumstances<\/strong>\u201d of deprivation suffered by the Maratha community.<\/li>\n<li>It also wants to look into the issue of whether <strong>Article 342A strips states of their discretionary power<\/strong> to include their backward communities in the <strong>State List<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>It will also check if the <strong>National Commission for Backward Classes<\/strong> (NCBC) <strong>interferes with the authority of states <\/strong>to provide benefit to the social and educationally backward communities in their own jurisdictions.\n<ul>\n<li>The <strong>102nd (Constitutional) Amendment Act, 2018<\/strong> introduced <strong>Articles 338B<\/strong> and <strong>Article 342A<\/strong> in the Constitution.\n<ul>\n<li>Article 338B deals with the <strong>NCBC<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>Article 342A <strong>empowers the President<\/strong> to specify the socially and educationally backward communities in a State.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<table border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" style=\"width:735px\">\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"vertical-align:top; width:468.0pt\">\n<p><strong>Indra Sawhney Case, 1992<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>A nine-judge Bench of the SC <strong>upheld the 27 per cent quota for Backward Classes<\/strong> and <strong>struck down<\/strong> the government notification reserving <strong>10 per cent government jobs for Economically Backward Classes<\/strong> among the higher castes.<\/li>\n<li>It also <strong>upheld <\/strong>the principle that the<strong> combined reservation beneficiaries should not exceed 50%<\/strong> of India\u2019s population.<\/li>\n<li>However, it also held that <strong>only in certain exceptional and extraordinary situations <\/strong>for<strong> bringing far-flung and remote areas&#8217; populations into<\/strong> <strong>mainstream<\/strong> said <strong>50% rule can be relaxed<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>The concept of \u2018<strong>Creamy Layer<\/strong>\u2019 also <strong>became popular<\/strong> through this judgment and also the provision that <strong>reservation <\/strong>for backward classes <strong>should be confined to initial appointments only<\/strong> and <strong>not extend to promotions<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.thehindu.com\/news\/national\/other-states\/supreme-court-may-revisit-50-limit-on-total-quotas\/article34019712.ece\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Source: TH<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In News Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) has decided to examine whether its Indira Sawhney case of 1992, which fixed the ceiling limit of 50% for reservation in government jobs and educational admissions, requires a re-look by a larger Bench. This comes in the backdrop of the crossing of the 50% reservation limit by states [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":14299,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[30],"class_list":["post-14298","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-current-affairs","tag-gs-2"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/wp-images.nextias.com\/cdn-cgi\/image\/format=auto\/ca\/uploads\/2023\/07\/3617494current-affairs (1).jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14298","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14298"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14298\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/14299"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14298"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14298"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14298"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}